From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Thread: 103376,f2690a5e963b61b6 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.megapath.net!news.megapath.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 17:31:34 -0500 From: "Randy Brukardt" Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada References: <1120474891.635131.216700@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1120575076.876798.108220@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1120583470.429264.325450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: GCC 4.0 Ada.Containers Cursor danger. Date: Wed, 6 Jul 2005 17:34:43 -0500 X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4952.2800 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4952.2800 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.32.209.38 X-Trace: sv3-cH2YlhIeSSuyC6QZESyyiemFbgfeJfdtjzuDUSrsSGJvWU7Vf8JA6UGo4qb7G9zlmFoOs95l4l91Nq3!Vtj1oy7wDgLgc77931TIUKOgidoWmguvL87/RsBv2+k9eGsm4z3ysTtS5a7sbbTlT6egi4QGDWxT X-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@megapath.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.lang.ada:11912 Date: 2005-07-06T17:34:43-05:00 List-Id: "Dmitriy Anisimkov" wrote in message news:1120583470.429264.325450@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > I know that code have an error. I'm saying that the errors like this is > easy to create, and hard to find. Neither compiler not runtime check > for this errors. Then, you're using the wrong implementation of Containers. IMHO, all implementations of containers should at least do minimal checks to detect the obvious cases like the one in your example. At this point, Containers implementations are immature, so it's really incorrect to draw any conclusions from them. And, Matt seems to have a strong aversion to checks of any kind. Every check that we mandated in the containers library was over his objections. So I don't find it surprising that his implementation of the containers doesn't include much checking. This state isn't surprising; we're still polishing the words and the specifications of the containers libraries. So no one is putting a lot of effort into implementations yet. It's unfortunate that the initial implementation has minimal checking, but I expect other implementations to be available that have more checking. One of the advantages of GNAT is that it is relatively easy to replace parts of the provided libraries. So using a debug Containers library instead of a mostly unchecked one is something that should be easy to do. Randy.